Trump Won! Some Random Thoughts

trump-victory

– 9 November 2016 –

Janus:

Janus-smallUntil about 8 o’clock yesterday, I was certain that the powers-that-be would steal the election from Donald Trump. Yet, despite the united opposition of Leftists and cuckservatives, Trump won the electoral vote.

So what can we expect to happen during Obama’s last few months and during Trump’s first months in office?

Too Close For Comfort

The election was a close thing. Too close. Another four years of even legal immigration at current levels will make it that much harder for a Right-wing candidate to pull off an electoral victory.

Driving around the country, I’ve seen a sea of Trump signs, many of them homemade, in the white countryside, and I’ve seen very few Hillary signs even in urban areas. Yet the cities gave Hillary a higher overall popular vote than Trump (through legitimate turnout or by fraud).

To repeat yesterday’s win in the 2020 election, Trump must not only halt legal as well as illegal immigration, he must drive out a significant number of foreigners or liberals.

Obama’s Last Days

While Obama made a show of civility and cooperation in his address to the nation today, he remains a radical Leftist activist. He and his handlers will do whatever they can to cement the changes they’ve imposed over the last eight years and to push their agendas forward through a Trump presidency.

Obama will probably encourage more racial unrest in cooperation with Soros-funded movements like Black Lives Matter. We may see more riots and marches against the police.

He and his ilk may intentionally create a banking crisis or a stock market crash. They may provoke international instability with Russia or the Middle East, perhaps even causing a war.

It’s amazing that the world’s terrorist attacks took a vacation during the past few months after a year of almost weekly horrors. The United States is ripe for civil unrest right now, and terrorists would be negligent if they didn’t take advantage, whether they are backed by Western traitors or not.

Look for Obama to issue a general pardon of black criminals (including himself and his cabinet), and create some sort of amnesty for illegal aliens. Likewise, he will almost certainly try to flood the country with Muslims while he still can.

Frankly, I will be suspicious if Obama doesn’t do these things to some extent.

Obama will almost certainly not try to stay in office. It’s apparent that he and his wife hate the presidency and can’t wait to leave.

grim_valerie_jarrett2

Obama’s multi-culti aides look pleasantly unhappy. Hopefully they flee the country. Nice to see them full of hate and despair for a change.

Trump’s First Days

Unlike Obama, Trump gets things done.

With the Republicans in charge of Congress for at least the next two years, Trump should be able to ram through some drastic changes during that time, particularly in the first 100 days. I expect he will have detailed plans of action ready before he even takes office.

A new Supreme Court justice, the revocation of many of Obama’s executive orders, immigration enforcement, etc.

If Trump is the real deal, his first days in office should be an exciting time.

Sabotage of Trump’s Presidency

Let’s hope that Trump refuses to bend in his attempt to be everyone’s president.

While making a show of ‘working together’, the elites will try to undermine Trump’s presidency. This sabotage will come from both right and left, from Trump’s ideological enemies and from his supposed allies. The cuck Paul Ryan made a pretty fawning speech today, but look for him and his fellow traitors to uphold the interests of the elites to maintain free trade, non-white immigration, and globalism in general.

If left to his own devices, Trump would probably support a very moderate, even liberal, social agenda. Fortunately, the Soros-funded dregs of society will likely force Trump to react against them. Trump will act decisively, perhaps driving further unrest. Trump may not have the luxury to appease them.

Assassination

It’s still possible that the powers-that-be could assassinate Trump before he takes office. This seems doubtful at this point, considering that they allowed him to win. But if Trump is really opposed to the globalist system, there is a good chance the elites will kill him at some point if he threatens their plans.

Betrayal

Donald Trump could also betray us. Ever since Trump’s remarkably tight win in the Missouri primary, I’ve been suspicious (paranoid?) that the PTB might actually have backed him all along, that he is some sort of false opposition. He did win several key states by very thin margins. If the system is rigged, could it be rigged for Trump?

On the other hand, Trump has shown that he is a man who rewards the loyalty of his followers, even when it isn’t the popular thing to do. For instance, Michael Savage has supported him from the get-go, and Trump called Savage’s radio show on the day of the election when there was no political advantage in doing so. A man like that isn’t likely to deceive so many people who sacrificed to support his campaign.

Regardless of whether Trump is a shill or not, we must remain vigilant to hold Trump’s feet to the fire.

Vigilance

In some ways it’s unfortunate that Hillary didn’t win a close (and likely stolen) election. The pernicious presence of Obama for the last eight years has done wonders in galvanizing patriotic whites to oppose the advance of racial diversity, immorality, and egalitarianism.

Had Hillary defeated Trump, the pressure that brought the Trump candidacy and the alt-right would have continued to rise to ever greater, more deplorable, levels. When it finally exploded, we could have made some dramatic changes for to secure a land for our people.

In the past thirty years, when Republican presidents took office, they never reversed the liberal trends of the predecessors, merely slowed them, and patriots lost their vigilance during those times.

If the Left doesn’t try to ruin the Trump presidency, then today’s patriots might fall asleep once again, allowing society to fully digest homosexuality, fluid gender, and other forms of sickness.

Conclusion

Whatever happens, the next year or two ought to be pretty interesting. Hang on to your MAGA hat.

Putin Neutralizes Obama’s Air Strikes in Syria

russianmg31a

– 5 September 2015 –

Janus:

Janus-smallA month ago, Obama authorized U.S. airstrikes in Syria to protect American-trained “moderate” rebels in the Syrian Civil War from all threats, including from Assad’s loyalist fighters.  This almost assured an eventual excuse for us to directly attack Assad’s strongholds and force the destruction of yet another truly moderate and secular Muslim government in favor of more unstable rule by radical Islamists.

Now Vladimir Putin—also in the name of fighting ISIS—has sent Russian ground troops to Syria and is preparing to build a military base to defend Assad’s rule:

Russia is building a military base in Syrian president Bashar al-Assad’s heartland, according to American intelligence officials, in the clearest indication yet of deepening Russian support for the embattled regime of Bashar al-Assad.

The anonymous officials say Russia has set up an air traffic control tower and transported prefabricated housing units for up to 1,000 personnel to an airfield serving the Syrian port city of Latakia.

Russia has also requested the rights to fly over neighbouring countries with military cargo aircraft during September, according to the reports.

The claims, which will raise fears that Russia is planning to expand its role in the country’s civil war, will ratchet up tensions between Moscow and Washington over the future of Syria and its brutal ruler.

Mr Obama on Friday met King Salman of Saudi Arabia to repeat their demand that any lasting settlement in Syria would require an end to the Assad regime.

It leaves the US and Russia implacably opposed in their visions for Syria.

The U.S. is committed to a policy of Middle Eastern destabilization—and apparently radicalization—either out of  gross incompetence or, more likely, the deliberate creation of Muslim monster states like ISIS.

There are at least three reasons for the United States and other Western nations to promote such a policy:

  1. The rise of lawless, radical territories across the Middle East—like those seen in Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq—will eventually provide justification for the United States and other Western-oriented globalist powers to destroy the radicals that were empowered by the Islamist regimes.  Radical governments act as honey pots for radical citizens, and the radical citizens can later be identified and exterminated.
  2. The average, go-along-to-get-along people in the lands ruled by radical Muslim fundamentalists will grow to despise even so-called moderate Islam in favor of the globalist secular order, if only because such an embrace will seem like the only alternative to insanity.  The globalist hope is to create a watered-down, feel-good Islam that accepts the secular world order.  (Good luck!)
  3. The terrorism and wars against radical Islam, greater than those seen so far, can be used to further erode real civil liberties in the West and to crack down on nativists and patriots who resist the secular global order.

Of course, there is another reason why the U.S. wants to destroy Assad: Israel wants us to.

Israel has long used Jewish influence in the United States to promote Israeli interests by using American money and American power.  Why else would the U.S. even care about Syria?  For years Syria and Israel have failed to get along, and this only grew worse in the few years before the Syrian Civil War.  Syria also possesses a strategic alliance with Iran, another major enemy of Israel.  The destruction of the Assad regime in Syria, or at least Syria’s marginalization through its long civil war, gives Israel a freer hand in any attack against Iran.

After some initial progress, Assad’s forces in Syria have steadily lost territory over the past year, most notably with the loss of Palmyra to ISIS on May 25.  By the beginning of August, Obama had hoped to finally finish him off.  But, as usual (thankfully), Obama (or his immediate handlers) didn’t act decisively enough.

CF6-qgWWYAAP9gj.jpg:large

Assad’s forces have lost significant territory in the past year, particularly the city of Palmyra in the central part of the country.

Now a bold move by Putin to bring in Russian troops, even if they are in reality only a token force designed to look like a larger force, will force the West to think twice about directly attacking Assad, even in defense of rebels.  The West could risk a war with Russia in which we would appear to be the aggressor.  From Joel Skousen’s World Affairs Brief:

Ever since the US began targeting Syria for regime change, Russia has only supplied Syria with replacement arms and ammunition—nothing new that would allow Assad to effectively combat the US backed rebels nor the Israeli Air Force which intervenes regularly against Assad’s air defenses. What I’ve consistently said over the years is that all the Russians have to do to stop US and Israeli intervention in Syria is to put a squadron of first line fighters in Syria and man them with Russian pilots, plus add some Russian Special Forces on the ground. The US isn’t going to risk WWIII by directly attacking the Russians (they want Russia to start it so the globalists look innocent). But this week, something dramatic may have changed—an Israeli news channel announced that a Russian fighter squadron will arrive in the next few days, followed by Special Forces to take on ISIS. I’ll have to see further evidence before I know it is real, but this could really put another wrench in globalist plans for both Syria and Iran if Russia shows some muscle.

By sending soldiers and pilots to fight ISIS when the United States won’t, at a time when the European Union is overwhelmed with Syrian and other refugees, Putin looks like a hero while protecting Russian interests in Syria.

Putin does risk drawing his forces into a war that could drag out for years.  He cannot directly attack U.S.-backed rebels for the same reason the United States is now unlikely to attack Assad’s: neither side is ready for war with the other.  But the ISIS forces should scatter quickly in the face of a real war against them, their members rushing to blend in with the locals while their empire vanishes in a puff of smoke.  If Putin acts quickly enough, ISIS may break and Assad may gain the upper hand against his Western-backed rebels.

While Putin is no saint, he is at least fighting the Islamic State, unlike the United States who is cynically using these barbarians to overthrow Assad.

Asian Carp: Why is Mass Immigration Wonderful for Society but Catastrophic for the Natural World?

asian-carp-2010

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqThe US government proposes to protect the Great Lakes from the invasive Asian carp.  From Fox News:

After two years of research, the Army Corps of Engineers earlier this year presented lawmakers with eight potential plans for protecting the Lakes. The proposal that’s received the most attention would physically cut-off Lake Michigan from Chicago’s waterways with a series of permanent barriers. Heartwell and others say that $18 billion plan, which is expected to take 25 years to complete, has the best shot at protecting the Lakes. [Emphasis added.]

“It’s not inexpensive but it’s a solution,” Heartwell said. “The risk of course of not doing it is that we have a multi-billion dollar sports fishing and tourism industry that would be devastated here in the Great Lakes.”

Critics of the plan though say it’s too expensive, too slow, and isn’t guaranteed to keep Asian carp from reaching the Great Lakes.

“The permanent barrier, depending on how simple it is or how massive it is, may not take into account some of the other waterways boats can get in,” Germann said. “It may not take into account a hundred-year flood that happens. So, I’m not sure that that’s ultimately even at the end of the day, the permanent solution.”

Chicago’s waterways are also key shipping routes for businesses to easily ship goods from the Great Lakes, down the Mississippi River, and into the Gulf of Mexico. Permanent barriers would cost commercial shippers more than $200 million per year, according to the report.

Shipping lanes closed, monumental barriers erected over the course of at least twenty-five years at the cost of billions of dollars. It has the sound of a typical government boondoggle.

But if it will really isolate the Great Lakes from the Mississippi River, I support this project, even if it can’t stop the invasion of the Asian carp (which has probably already breached Chicago’s electric defenses).  Incidentally I wouldn’t mind seeing the St. Lawrence Seaway scrapped either.

For tens of thousands of years aquatic life lived in isolation within the Great Lakes, but the opening of the lakes to international commerce exposed them to one invader after another, numbering more than 180 species in all.  This invasion has accelerated since the completion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway in 1959.

While most of these invaders have made little impact on the native fauna, a few of them have wreaked havoc on the native species. Most famous of these invaders are the sea lamprey invasion of the 1930’s and 40’s and the zebra mussel invasion of the 1990’s.

An unrestricted flow of aquatic life from the St. Lawrence Seaway through the Great Lakes and through the Illinois Waterway into the Mississippi watershed only continues this vector of disruption.  How can native species be protected when the figurative doors to the rest of the world are held wide open, electric gate or no?

It is interesting that the progressive proponents of unlimited immigration so often are the greatest advocates for the preservation of even the most insignificant of local subspecies.  They see great value in natural diversity but find little value in preserving local culture, language, or religion from foreign displacement or absorption.  How can they see mass immigration as a wonderful gift to society while they recognize the harm of invasive species to the natural world?

On the other side of the political spectrum, we have free traders and libertarians who demand the unrestricted flow of cheap goods and labor to the market, and everything else will have to adapt or die.  The system of Darwinian selection will prove which natural species, or which human culture or people, is the most fit to survive.  If native species, cultures, or nations can’t cut it, then the free traders will assume that something more fit to survive has replaced them.

While I am no socialist or environmentalist zealot, I am a protectionist and conservationist.  I care about my native land and its wildlife, its distinct people (accepting that most of us are in turn an invasive species to North America) and local cultures, and the traditional civilization and religion that has built the Western World into the greatest civilization the earth has ever known.

We can take a small hit on the efficiency of commerce in order to protect our local wildlife, our local economies, and the religion, language, and culture of our local populations.

Migration and Modern Transportation; The Saudi Example

saudi-foreignor-riots

Patulcius:

Patulcius-sqSaudi Arabia is cracking down on its illegal alien problem, with 137,569 deported in the month since the policy began.

A total of 197,806 illegal expatriates have been fingerprinted for final exit across the Kingdom during the first month of the crackdown which started on Nov. 4. In one month 137,569 illegals were deported, according to Maj. Gen. Ayedh Al-Luqmani, Assistant Director General of Passports for Haj and Umrah Affairs.

Al-Luqmani, who is also security coordinator at the General Services Center in the Makkah Region, said that the center has taken measures to speed up and complete deportation procedures of the inmates at the Shumaisi detention center within 24 hours. “More than 87,000 illegals from the Makkah region were fingerprinted in one month. At present, the Shumaisi center handles 5,000-7,000 cases daily,” he said, noting that the procedures for deportation of some 5,782 illegals were completed within 24 hours last Wednesday. “We arrange additional flights daily to deport the illegals. Some 22 flights were operating daily from the Jeddah airport to take illegals to their home countries,” Al-Luqmani said.

Naturally all of the typical banshees are shrieking their disapproval at those backward Saudis, even though a third of the population of their country is composed of foreign workers.  The Saudis only plan to remove about 10% of them.

Modern transportation has made the importation of cheap workers from all over the world a common and practical phenomenon.  For people in rich countries like Saudi Arabia, it is cheaper and more pleasurable to import Ethiopians and Filipinos to clean their toilets and empty their trash than to pay high wages for their own unemployed to do the same, even if it brings crime and the occasional riot.  The workers might even return home when their labor is complete.  (Maybe that’s the case in Saudi Arabia anyway.)

But the Saudis have also demonstrated the other side of cheap migration.  If it’s cheap to bring them in, it’s cheap to kick them out.

Rather than allow a small, hand-picked number of foreigners to work and live productively in their countries as they did before World War II, the West has—out of naive compassion (or deliberate sabotage)—saturated its lands with foreign workers and refugees who refuse to assimilate.  This foolish compassion has created another dilemma: what happens when the guests get the idea that they rule the house?  They fight for possession.

The conflict between the native peoples and the immigrants could take generations of spilled blood to resolve, with the outcome by no means assured.  Or Westerners might discover that it’s cheaper and easier to expel the unassimilable foreigners from their midsts like the Saudis are doing.

The Senate Amnesty Bill; Why Must the West Uniquely Open the Floodgates?

Gang-of-8

What’s so funny, Gang of Eight? Just the decline and fall of Western Civilization, that’s all.

Patulcius

The United States government seems bent on foisting an amnesty for the country’s supposedly 11 million illegal aliens on the American people whether they want it or not.[1]  The ‘Gang of Eight’ Senate bill, called the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 (S. 744), would allow illegal immigrants who arrived before 31 December 2011 to become legal residents if they meet various conditions, such as paying back-taxes and having a clean criminal record,[2] and the bill gives them a pathway to US citizenship.

The smug, aptly-named ‘Gang of Eight’ assures Americans that this bill will establish border security before these migrants can become citizens, but we heard this sort of nonsense back in 1986 to promote the passage of the previous amnesty.  The new bill grants more H1-B worker visas each year (from a current 85,000 to 205,000), and it allows more agricultural workers inside the country.  The bill allows Congress to change the amounts of future immigrants based on ‘economic conditions’, but this would likely mean, in practice, that limits on the numbers of issued green cards would effectively disappear.

Earnest-faced conservatives, terrified that they might feel racist, are always saying that they don’t mind legal immigrants, but they strongly oppose the illegal variety.  But how does an invasion that the government sanctions bring different results than an invasion that happens illegally?  Our country is still transformed, our local cultures drowned out.

And why must the West uniquely absorb the excess populations of other nations?  In doing so, Western nations seem to say that they possess no national or cultural heritage that is worth maintaining.  Our globalist leaders would suggest that our economies, our laws, and government benefits matter the most in a country.

But our nations at one time understood that we were a collection of people who shared a common history, language, ethnicity, and culture.  Minorities were tolerated to various degrees, but they were not allowed to disrupt the nation that surrounded them.  People once considered nationhood as something to cherish and uphold, and, if necessary, to defend.  Virtually no one questioned such an obvious commitment.

What changed?

Since the 1950’s and especially the 60’s, Western nations, ashamed of their recent legacies of colonial exploitation and white supremacy, embraced a suicidal policy of immigration from other countries, particularly from non-European countries.  It wasn’t ‘nice’ to deny the benefits of one’s country to others, especially when one’s country had shamelessly exploited the people who clamored to move in.  Whites forced themselves to believe that anyone from anywhere could assimilate into their countries, that Turks could become good, orderly Germans, that Moroccans would transform themselves into fine, upstanding French snobs.  Mexicans, we are assured, want to become law-abiding, English-speaking US citizens.  Somehow the reality has failed to meet these utopian ideals.

Rather than assimilate, the non-European migrants have created large pockets of restless, unemployed, resentful populations that are reproducing faster than the secularized, egalitarianized natives.

riot-cp-3953861-392

Europeans are starting to figure out that mass immigration isn’t working.

In Europe, mostly Muslim immigrants possess little respect for the societal nihilism that surrounds them, and they wish to impose their own unyielding society on the natives.

In the United States, immigrants more simply want to work and send money home, or take advantage of the welfare system.  Few of them have any real loyalty to the United States, even fewer value our traditions of individual liberty and Christian morality.  (And why should they when so few Americans do?)

Given enough time and enough continued migration, the immigrants will transform their host nations into the types of countries from which they departed—poor, heterogeneous, corrupt, and unstable.

It is interesting that people from non-Western countries have come to understand that it is okay to maintain their cultures and ethnicities as nation-states in their own lands (although these countries often do force their own local minorities to assimilate), but white countries become dangerous and racist when they assert dominance within their own countries.  This dichotomy ironically stems from the worldwide ascendancy of Western culture, a culture that despises its own traditions and history of ethnic dominance.  People in non-Western countries ultimately face, as the West now faces, self-destruction of their own culture, sovereignty, and ethnicity pushed by their own Westernized international elites.

Each nation of people on this earth, however great or small, should be able to maintain its own borders, language, ethnicity, and culture.  Likewise, each nation should respect the borders, language, ethnicity, and culture of other nations.

We in the United States, in order to uphold our own enfeebled nation-state, should resist this newest amnesty.  Regardless of the rhetoric, this bill increases the already perilous threat to our language, ethnicity, and culture.

The awful ‘Gang of Eight’ and the major political parties will pressure everyone to support the bill.  The Democrats will support the expanded voter base, and Rubio and McCain will warn Republican suckers that without the support of Hispanics they will never win another presidency.

romney-cincy

Typical Romney rally in Cincinnati: Not many brown faces in this crowd. “Fend for yourselves!” doesn’t play out among non-White voting blocs.

But these arguments are false: non-white voting blocs do not share elite progressive concerns; they only want government benefits.  And for conservatives, Hispanics will never, as a whole, become ‘good Republicans’; amnesty will only accelerate the decline of American conservatism.

Strong popular opposition to immigration ‘reform’ has derailed such immigration bills in the recent past, and may well do so again.  We shall see if the American people have the will to preserve themselves.

Clusivius

The immigration situation for Western nations outside of Europe isn’t quite so grim as Patulcius suggests.

In general, very limited immigration can benefit a country if it can attract the world’s best and brightest.  The phenomenon of ‘brain drain’ brings such talented people to an advanced country like the United States.  These are people whose skills would be wasted in their own poor countries.

And, outside of Europe, the immigrants are assimilating.  In the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, most immigrants show signs of learning English (or French in Quebec) and their children have absorbed much of the culture.  By the third generation, these immigrants are often culturally indistinguishable from the white natives.  The prognosis in the long term for the assimilation of immigrants in these countries is quite good, despite some of the heated rhetoric.

Admittedly, immigrants are failing to assimilate within parts of the United States, such as southern Florida and regions of the American southwest, and these do pose a threat to the integrity of the country.  But in areas where a single immigrant group doesn’t dominate a large area, the immigrants will gradually adopt the culture of their new countries.

The greatest danger of immigration, particularly in the United States but also in other Western countries, comes from the political disruption that immigrants bring, at least in the short run.  For the most part, immigrants have little respect for individual liberty as a political ideal.  Their own countries use politics as a means to gain support from different factions within their electorate, and immigrant populations (like many native populations) view voting as an exercise in determining the distribution of largesse.

Elites in the United States dislike individual liberty, and they have managed to tilt the electoral balance in their favor by flooding the country with new voters who care nothing for the Constitution, for individual rights, or for self-sufficiency.  Since so many native-born citizens no longer value these freedoms, they will vanish at the national level as immigration continues to accelerate.

I, too, oppose the amnesty bill.


[1] Dann, Carrie. “They’re Off! Immigration Debate Begins on Senate Floor.” NBC News. NBCNews.com, 7 June 2013. Web. 10 June 2013. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/07/18829022-theyre-off-immigration-debate-begins-on-senate-floor?lite

[2] How difficult can this be for an immigrant without papers?

  • May 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Dec    
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
%d bloggers like this: